get_customer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description says 'Read and update' but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction: the tool is read-only, yet the description implies it can update. No other behavioral details (pagination, response format, etc.) compensate. This is a serious inconsistency, so score 1.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the (misleading) 'Read and update' but still compact. It packs in the scope, error case, and permission requirements without unnecessary verbosity. However, the misleading update phrase detracts from overall structure, so not a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-customer tool, it covers the key constraints: token scoping, 403 behavior, required permissions. It does not mention the customerContext parameter or when to include it, which is important for DoiT employees. The contradiction about updating also undermines completeness, so while it has substantial context, it misses critical aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: customerContext lacks a description in the schema, but customerId has no schema description. The description adds crucial semantics for customerId (must match token, 403 if not), but says nothing about customerContext, which is required for DoiT employees. It partially compensates for the undocumented parameter but leaves a gap, hence 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it 'Read and update your organization's general settings' and 'Returns the customer,' which conveys a general purpose. However, the tool is named get_customer and the description itself emphasizes returning data, while the 'update' part is misleading and contradicts the read-only nature. It does identify the resource and scope, but the ambiguity lowers clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: the customerId must match the bearer token's customer, and it explicitly states the 403 error for mismatches, and required permissions. It does not compare with sibling tools like search_customers, but the scoping constraint gives practical usage guidance, earning a 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.